In other Supreme Court news ...

[Hawkmoon]

... The SCOTUS has ruled that employers must make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-christian-postal-worker-refused-work-sundays-rcna84868

Even if the employer is the United State Postal Service.

[K Frame]

I love the sound of liberal heads exploding...

It sounds like...

Well it's just awesome!

[MechAg94]

There were briefs supporting his claim from a handful of other religious organizations. 

Groups representing Christian denominations and other religious faiths filed briefs backing Groff, including the American Hindu Coalition, the American Sikh Coalition and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The American Postal Workers Union, which says it has about 200,000 members, filed a brief warning the court that a ruling in favor of Groff that creates a “religious preference” for scheduling work on the weekend would disadvantage other workers who do not share the same religious faith.

The union twisted themselves a bit trying to figure out how to oppose his claim.  Public unions should die.

[Perd Hapley]

The American Postal Workers Union, which says it has about 200,000 members, filed a brief warning the court that a ruling in favor of Groff that creates a “religious preference” for scheduling work on the weekend would disadvantage other workers who do not share the same religious faith.

So, like being a Gentile doctor or lawyer then, I would imagine.

[WLJ]

SC is suppose to release their ruling on Biden's student loans forgiveness plan today.

 

[MechAg94]

SC is suppose to release their ruling on Biden's student loans forgiveness plan today.

 

IMO, the ruling should be 1) the Govt should not be in the business of giving out loans and stop that practice; 2) the govt should not be charging interest for any reason; and 3) the people still need to pay back the original loan principle (not including interest). 

Congress should probably do that.  I have no idea if there is justification in the Constitution for that or in precedent. 

[WLJ]

I'm sure if it''s struck down some libs will be screaming "but it's a constitutional right!" just like they do with abortion.

I like at ask them to point out that section in the constitution but they never do for some bizarre reason

[MechAg94]

I'm sure if it''s struck down some libs will be screaming "but it's a constitutional right!" just like they do with abortion.

I like at ask them to point out that section in the constitution but they never do for some bizarre reason

If they were smart, their answer would always be the general welfare clause or the 14th Amendment.   

[Pb]

The court case mentioned is actually pretty tough.  I can see arguments for both sides.

Giving someone Sunday off seems like a reasonable accommodation... but in many places, it is the folks with seniority who get weekends off, and newer hires have their days off during the week.  This is exactly what it was like in on of my jobs.  Why should someone get priority in days off because of their religious beliefs over those with seniority? 

Anyone, I'm glad I didn't have to make the call on that one.

[dogmush]

It is similar (and related) to it being decided that a prayer room and non standard break times was a reasonable accommodation for Muslims.

Part of me really wants to say that the fed.gov should really just keep their nose out of voluntarilly entered into employment contracts.

Another part of me is aware of the very real historical examples of pretty bad abuse by employers from company towns and stores to the modern penchant for hiring illegals so they won't report anything.

[WLJ]

Looks like the same 6 and 3 again

Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN Biden's $400 billion student loan forgiveness: Justices rule president does not have authority to cancel debt of millions in another landmark ruling
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12251033/Supreme-Court-strikes-Bidens-student-loan-forgiveness.html

[WLJ]

And in another 6-3 decision
This one wasn't so much on people's radar but should have been.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a Christian web design business who refused to design a website for a same-sex wedding, the latest in a series of decisions that expands the reach of religion in daily life.

The vote was 6-3, reflected the conservative-liberal divide among justices.

The ruling overturned a lower court's decision that Denver-area business owner Lorie Smith was not allowed an exemption from a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

'The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy,' wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch for the majority.

The Supreme Court rules in FAVOR of Christian Colorado graphic designer who refused to set up a page celebrating same-sex marriage
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12251417/Supreme-Court-rules-FAVOR-graphic-designer-refused-make-website-sex-marriage.html

[Pb]

That's wonderful news!

[WLJ]

[HankB]

In the religious freedom case (working on Sunday) the commentary I heard said that the individual affected had worked there for a number of years, with no Sunday work required.

Then the USPS changed his job requirements, and expected him to work on Sunday. (Amazon wanted the USPS to deliver their packages on Sundays.) The job change was the sticking point.

IMHO this was a good decision - had they fully disclosed Sunday (or other) work requirements up front when they first hired him, I would have ruled otherwise.

[Perd Hapley]

And in another 6-3 decision
This one wasn't so much on people's radar but should have been.

The Supreme Court rules in FAVOR of Christian Colorado graphic designer who refused to set up a page celebrating same-sex marriage
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12251417/Supreme-Court-rules-FAVOR-graphic-designer-refused-make-website-sex-marriage.html

...the latest in a series of decisions that expands the reach of religion in daily life.

Um, no, it expands personal liberty in daily life, you statist poltroons.

[WLJ]

And in another 6-3 decision
This one wasn't so much on people's radar but should have been.

The Supreme Court rules in FAVOR of Christian Colorado graphic designer who refused to set up a page celebrating same-sex marriage
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12251417/Supreme-Court-rules-FAVOR-graphic-designer-refused-make-website-sex-marriage.html

They're spinning that the above will increase anti-gay/LGBTQ

Sotomayor dissented from the majority, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, calling the ruling "a new license to discriminate" and arguing that the "symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status."

As part of her dissenting opinion, Sotomayor mentioned the Pulse shooting, where 49 people were killed and dozens more were injured. Police shot and killed gunman Omar Mateen after a three-hour standoff, during which he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terror group.

Sotomayor dissent in Christian designer case makes false claim about Pulse nightclub shooting
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sotomayor-dissent-christian-designer-case-makes-false-claim-pulse-nightclub-shooting

And not to be outdone here comes Fetterman

    On the last day of Pride Month, an extremist and unelected SCOTUS uses a made-up case to hand out a “constitutional" right to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

    What an embarrassment for our country.
    — Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) June 30, 2023

https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2023/06/30/john-fetterman-last-day-of-pride-month-supreme-court-made-up-case-n2384998

I've noticed the term "unelected" appearing in many articles today in many cases they only refer to the conservative justices as unelected.

[RoadKingLarry]

What an embarrassment for our country.
    — Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) June 30, 2023

Well, he is an expert on being an embarrassment for our country.

[Hawkmoon]

And in another 6-3 decision
This one wasn't so much on people's radar but should have been.

The Supreme Court rules in FAVOR of Christian Colorado graphic designer who refused to set up a page celebrating same-sex marriage
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12251417/Supreme-Court-rules-FAVOR-graphic-designer-refused-make-website-sex-marriage.html

The liberals appear to be incapable of comprehending certain fundamental concepts. from the link:

During oral arguments, the court's liberal justices said a ruling in Smith's favor would encourage other businesses to discriminate against certain customers.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the minority dissent. She said the ruling was 'profoundly wrong.'

'Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,' she said, reading from the bench in a display of the depth of the minority's feeling.

This decision does not grant Ms. Smith an unlimited right to refuse service to gays. She specifically asked not to be required to produce content that offends her religious beliefs. If two persons-of-the-same-sex came to her to design a corporate web site for a new all-electric helicopter factory, I'm sure she would not have a problem with that -- and this ruling would not provide her with a basis for refusing to do so.

And the liberals accuse conservative originalists as being "activist" judges ... 

[charby]

On religious freedoms, what if a member of the Islam religion decides that Riba forbids them from paying or receiving unreasonably high interest on money?

Like going after Credit Card companies or Pay Day Loans.

[RoadKingLarry]

On religious freedoms, what if a member of the Islam religion decides that Riba forbids them from paying or receiving unreasonably high interest on money?

Like going after Credit Card companies or Pay Day Loans.

I'm pretty sure those of the Islamic faith already have the absolute right to NOT enter into a voluntary loan agreement if they choose not to.
I'm not aware of any organization the forces anyone to take out a loan.

[MechAg94]

Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up New Gun Case
https://thereload.com/supreme-court-agrees-to-review-domestic-violence-restraining-order-gun-ban/

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted review in United States v. Rahimi. In February, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the prohibition on owning guns while being subject to a domestic violence restraining order is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed that decision, and now the Court will now take up that same question.

On that point, the Fifth Circuit panel found there was insufficient evidence that the restraining order restriction was part of the “historical tradition” of gun regulation, as required under Bruen’s test.

“The Government fails to demonstrate that § 922(g)(8) ‘s restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Government’s proffered analogues falter under one or both of the metrics the Supreme Court articulated in Bruen as the baseline for measuring ‘relevantly similar’ analogues: ‘how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense,’” Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote for the panel in United States v. Rahimi. “As a result, § 922(g)(8) falls outside the class of firearm regulations countenanced by the Second Amendment.”

From the article's description, Rahimi is not at all a good person.  Shouldn't matter for this, but it might.

[Pb]

The restraining order disqualifier should have been scrapped decades ago.  Restraining orders granted for BS reasons are common.  The misdomener domestic violance ban is also rubbish (I read the most common reason for a conviction is grabbing a cell phone away from someone).

Of course, if you go by Bruen, the felon disqualifier is unconstitutional also.  Freed criminals weren't disqualified from owning guns in early American history.

Some non-citizen groups yes (slaves and Indians).  Felons?  Nope.

[HankB]

. . . Of course, if you go by Bruen, the felon disqualifier is unconstitutional also.  Freed criminals weren't disqualified from owning guns in early American history.. . .

If someone with a felony conviction is considered too dangerous to have access to a gun - why the hell were they turned loose so they'd have access to more victims?

Felons with guns . . . I wonder how many people are lying awake at night worrying about the mayhem that convicted felon Martha Stewart would commit should she somehow obtain a firearm . . . 

[Hawkmoon]

The restraining order disqualifier should have been scrapped decades ago.  Restraining orders granted for BS reasons are common.  The misdomener domestic violance ban is also rubbish (I read the most common reason for a conviction is grabbing a cell phone away from someone).

Of course, if you go by Bruen, the felon disqualifier is unconstitutional also.  Freed criminals weren't disqualified from owning guns in early American history.

Some non-citizen groups yes (slaves and Indians).  Felons?  Nope.

When did convicted felons become lifetime prohibited persons? Was it the 1934 NFA or the 1968 GCA?